One of the best parts about Highlander is how despite itself, it somehow manages to work. The plot has inconsistencies all over the place, the accents are terrible and the cast seem split on whether to take it all seriously or ham it up. But that is part of its charm in many ways. The filmmakers wisely keep much of core mythology vague, doling out key elements that develop the central character, whilst ensuring the larger backstory remains mysterious. Its a lesson the sequels failed to heed. It’s also clear the filmmakers expected no future franchise with the film providing a satisfying closure for the characters and the themes explored. Indeed this focus on the central character is what makes the film work so well, with the location and historical setting lending the film an epic quality that would otherwise be absent and the core idea that immortality is as much a curse as a gift brought to the fore. For all his difficulties with the accent, Lambert takes the character seriously and whilst he endlessly broods in the present, its the exploration of his past that works to make the audience care and relate to his isolation. Both Sean Connery and Clancy Brown ensure the audience doesn’t take it all too seriously and provide some much needed humour and fun. It helps that the film also has a killer soundtrack from Queen.
If you've ever felt like watching a movie that is the definition of playing it safe, you should definitely give the fifth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise a chance. There really isn't a single risk taken here, which leads to a film that is shockingly boring for long stretches. Tension or even a sense of adventure hardly ever arise in the 2.5 hours of runtime. And even the finale disappointed me, similarly to the miserable fourth part.
In spite of that, "Dial of Destiny" actually gets off to a halfway promising start. If you can overlook the fact that the deaging technology is still not truly ready, then the opening sequence during World War II is really fun. Unfortunately, it's also the last time the film is genuinely good. James Mangold is by all means a capable director, but here he fails to convey any personal style at all. The plot is pretty basic, with pretty much every twist and turn being predictable until the absurd finale.
The cast also, regrettably, didn't entirely work for me. Harrison Ford is still good, but age has definitely caught up with him. Mads Mikkelsen isn't bad as the villain either, and there are a few nice cameos as well. However, I was disappointed by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, whose character Helena is terribly written and who seemed like a miscast to me. In my opinion, she's no better than Shia LaBeouf in the fourth movie. And I don't even want to mention anything about Ethann Isidore, who plays a poor man's Short Round.
It all certainly sounds a bit more negative than it actually is. Ultimately, the film has hardly any serious lows, but it also has pretty much no satisfying high points. It's all pretty mediocre. At most, the occasional fan service moment managed to elicit a chuckle from me. But for a good film, they should have taken some risks, at least at some points. As it is, I can't really recommend "Dial of Destiny".
And YOU get an iron man suit..aaaaand YOU get an iron man suit AND YOUUU get an iron man suit ppphhhfffrrrttt
Well, it was definitely a Tom Cruise movie. Good action and a decently engaging plot but nothing that stood out really. Still, I had fun watching it in the big screen. It was very theatrical
For me, the main question I wanted to know going in was, "Is this going to be better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".
Happy to report that, yes it's vastly superior in almost every area to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
But with that out of the way, does it compete/equal the originals, to which the answer for me was no.
But it had its moments and felt way more in line with "an Indiana Jones" movie than Crystal Skull and had it's share of flaws. I still think Hollywood should use younger actors or makeup/prosthetics instead of "de-aging CGI" as it continues to look horrible IMO, or at least use it the same way the used emerging CGI in the late 90's early 00's by keeping it in shadow/not the focus point.
The cast, both legacy and new are solid across the board, soundtrack and score work well, plot was a big fun dumb adventure that actually felt like following the breadcrumbs in a good way.
Not at all a bad film, but one that probably won't make my top 10 of the year, but unlike Crystal Skull this probably also won't make my worst 10 of the year either.
The cgi is awful in a ton of scenes. Especially the babies scenes. Batman and Supergirl had cool scenes, but all the flash stuff was boring and stupid.:rofl::wastebasket:
The Best Part Of The Flash Is All The Batmans That Were In It - Genuinely Michael Keaton Was The Best Part - It Wasn't As Bad As Justice League But This Was Just An OK Movie - Ezra Miller Is Decent As A Side Character Not The Main Actor, He Just Wasn't Good To Lead - And The CGI Gave Me A Migraine, It Was Just Plain Bad
It's a canon event, Barry!
Overall, this was a decent superhero movie. Michael Keaton was great being Batman again, fun cameos, and some of the jokes were funny. The only thing that didn't sit well with me was the CGI & VFX. It felt like I was watching a slightly older generational video game.
Yeah, this movie was fun. This is the best way to describe the positives. Regardless of how you feel about Ezra Miller as an actual person, his portrayal of Barry is very likable and he killed it by playing two of them. And the humor is quite good. I (and a bunch of others in the theatre) laughed a good amount of times, it was charming. That also applies to action which is well-shot and creative.
I am very much looking forward to Andy making the Batman movie if the rumors are true. His camerawork is nothing but amazing, I loved it. Really excited for the action Gunn and Andy can bring to the DCU. The CGI is also most of the time a clear non-issue unless you pay extra attention to it. The only time where I think it becomes distracting and uncanny is the cameos, but that takes place in the speed force so I can live with Andy’s argument here. However, uncanny cameos don't come close to ruining this movie as many people pretend it, although I'm sure none of them actually watched the movie. So let me state it clearly: I think the Flash is well-shot, looks a few times bad, but most of the time very good. There are a lot of scenes where color and lighting are very well-utilized. Personally, I have some gripes with the aesthetic of the speed force though, but maybe we can improve it in the DCU. The DCU is the perfect opportunity to overhaul the aesthetic and make something better.
If there is one thing I think could've been better, it is definitely the emotional gravitas. I think the script is solid, but there is just too much content to expand on the theme properly, but Barry's characterization also feels rushed. I think previous movies could've established that better, and this movie instead could have expanded more on Keaton's Batman and also Supergirl, because they also have regrets and scars from the past. Supergirl generally is criminally underutilized in this movie. This movie felt super short, to be honest. I guess I was well entertained because it didn't feel like I sat in there for 2,5 hours and there is so much they could've expanded on. Also, I liked the Andy cameo.
So yeah, overall, fun and charming experience, however, the movie ultimately feels rushed. Too much content crammed into one movie. The general theme of regrets and moving on is very good, but the movie didn't live up to its potential. In a DCU which has proper build-up between different movies and series, I think Andy can make something truly magical.
I really wanted to love this movie.
Visually, it's absolutely gorgeous! Unfortunately, the "friendship" which is supposed to be the emotional core of the movie rings completely hollow.
One of the two main characters is not a character at all. Lt. Hudner has literally zero characteristics (except not being racist), and the movie fails to make me care about him or even believe that he's a real person.
Why does he care about Jesse so much? Because he's black? Because Daisy asked him to in their one short conversation?
Such a disappointment. Not a terrible movie, but it could really have been great.
A refreshing addition to the MCU, made me laugh, made me cry, and restored my faith in the franchise. A nostalgic and thrilling ending to the trilogy!
Like an orgy: lots of action and sensations, though a bit messy and will leave you feeling empty and under-satisfied when you're done.
Those of you who loved the charm and comedy of the first Ant-Man are going to be as let down as a Chinese weather balloon.
For any who have pondered what it would look like in our post-Lord of the Rings, superhero blockbuster era if somebody tried making The Princess Bride, Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves is your answer. It's an ambitious swing that results in a solid hit, if not a classic. And while it falls short of being a viable launching pad for a new universe of IP-based media content, it is an all-around fun watch that will entertain and perhaps even delight you, so long as you don't stare too hard at some of the frayed plot edges. The cast is all aces (though Chris Pine is - surprisingly - the weakest link among them), and the script from Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, & Michael Gilio is solid. Even when they're making jokes at its expense, the filmmakers show a deep respect for the source material, though they're not always interested in being 100% faithful to it. Genre films that don't take themselves too seriously can be lots of fun. See the afore-mentioned The Princess Bride or Eric the Viking (which clearly had an influence here) for great examples. But the flip side of irreverence is a deprioritization of world-building. Case in point, there's no sense of place, as the team jumps from region to region and nothing is explored. Another issue is magic- one moment we're getting an explanation of why magic can't just solve everything, and - literally - the next we get the introduction of a new magic MacGuffin. ("See? You can magic your way in!" one character says.) Magic has rules, apparently, but they are almost never explained or followed- except when they serve to present an obstacle for the characters to overcome. There's an order of spies & supposed defenders of justice that one of the main characters was once a part of, but we never see any of them. At the center of the plot is the fact that there's a vast kingdom bordering the region of Neverwinter that's ruled by an all-powerful cadre of Red Wizards who command an army of the undead. Yet why isn't the entire society on a war footing? All of this and more is glossed over in favor of jokes and madcap adventure. To be clear, the madcap adventure is fun and the fan service is subtle enough to be accessible to novices (a really neat trick, that), but as I was watching I just kept feeling like this could be so much more.
Tolkien's work demands dedicated, detailed craftsmanship from the people who want to translate it to the big screen. Why is it that Dungeons & Dragons doesn't warrant the same kind of effort? And what would a movie (or prestige TV series) from this talented team of filmmakers look like if it did? I hope that we can find out someday.
Didn't enjoy this film on release. Currently working my way through a Marvel marathon, and thought a second viewing might alter my opinion.
It didn't. Definitely one of the weakest MCU entries.
As much a relationship drama as it is a treatise on the death penalty, this is an emotionally complicated and moving film.
What an utterly raw film. In so many ways.
A complex setting suffused with mixed emotions that are absolutely nailed by both leads.
I gave The Avatar 2 a rating of 8 out of 10. The cinematography is incredible and really blew me away. However, the plot is a bit more of the same and doesn't have many surprises.
I can confidently say that the sequel is better than the original, although it's been some time since I saw the first movie so it might be difficult to make a precise comparison.
Overall, I recommend seeing The Avatar 2 in the cinema. If it weren't for the fact of seeing it in the cinema, I probably wouldn't watch it until many years from now when the third movie comes out. However, the cinematic experience is worth it and I believe the movie will surprise you.
One of the strongest points of the movie is definitely the visual creativity. The imagery is simply stunning and the special effects technology is top-notch. The attention to detail is incredible and I was really impressed with the quality of the animation.
One thing I really appreciated about the movie was the way it explored themes of environmentalism and the impact of humans on the natural world. The message was subtle but powerful and it was nice to see a blockbuster movie tackle such important issues.
However, one thing that I felt was missing was more character development between the first and second movies. While the first movie gave us a deeper understanding of the characters and their motivations, the second movie seemed to focus more on action and visual scenes rather than character development.
I hope that in the third movie there will be more time to explore the personalities and goals of the characters, as I believe this would make the story more engaging and meaningful. While The Avatar 2 is a fun movie to watch, I was a little disappointed with the lack of depth in the characters.
However, while I enjoyed the cast and the cinematography, I felt that the plot could have been a bit more original. Some of the plot twists were a bit predictable and I felt that some of the supporting characters could have been better developed.
Overall, I think The Avatar 2 is a fun and visually spectacular movie, but it could have had a bit more depth.
The movie is visually stunning, and the world-building is incredible, but the plot is plain at best. Some plot points that should have been epic end up feeling cliché and predictable. The stop-aging serum is too on your face to resonate as a pertinent social commentary. We expect the whale hunter to his left arm almost as soon as he appears on screen, but that no longer feels poetic when it actually happens. And, the rejection of the outcasts is as standard as it could be.
However, my biggest issue with the movie is the characters. Most of them are unlikable, flat, and static. The emo girl who feels like an amalgamation of every teen character Winona Ryder has done before. The golden boy with no other personality trait. The middle child feels like he is disappointing everyone. The little sister serves as a comedy relief. And the wife who sacrifices what she knows to support her husband. It plays out like a collection of stock characters got released on Pandora. Diminishing all the momentum created by the world-building and the cinematography.
Pandora, for a community that is all about balance and spirituality, they have a very rigid social structure. At the begging of the movie, Zoe Saldaña's character begs her husband to stay home and fight. But he convinces her to run away instead... Three hours later, she loses her son and community and has been living as a refugee. It's then that Sam Worthington's character says he now knows better and they should stay and fight. It feels misogynistic and makes the plot meaningless as we finish where we started. But now he got the idea of defending themselves all by himself, not from a woman. The worst part may be how little the Sully clan cares about Spider. A human that loves the Na'vi and sees them as family. He is loyal to them under extreme circumstances. Yet, none of the Sully spends a second of their time thinking about him. He has every reason to betray them, yet he never does.
Despise the flaws, the movie is a visually immersive adventure that makes Pandora feel alive and very real. Definitely worth the trip to the movie theater.
If I ever traveled to Avatar world, I would invent arrow proof cockpit glass for the helicopters and become rich.
3 Thoughts After Watching ‘Violent Night’:
Lazy writing abounds in this film. From the cringy “Santa Claus is coming to town” and “Christmas dies tonight” lines… to the naming of Skullcrusher… to the completely unnecessary burning of the money to keep Santa warm… it’s all just a bit too silly. But I ask myself if I should expect anything else considering the plot.
My first thought when seeing John Leguizamo was that he was an odd choice to cast as a villain. Not entirely sure why. Maybe he’s just too likable.
I didn’t hate it. The highlights were David Harbour, the “Home Alone” scene, and Santa’s final kill. It was all an interesting concept that only occasionally fell flat.
This movie's opening few minutes were the best it had to offer. It really pulled me in, but unfortunately, by about the half way point, I'd gotten tired of hearing the cast of misfits, troublemakers and convicts talk about themselves. There weren't enough of the actual predators around to keep things interesting.
Adrien Brody doesn't work very well here. Neither does Alice Braga. They're decent enough actors but they just seemed out of place in this violent, Action/Sci-Fi flick.
There were a number of twists and turns here and they were surprising at times, but frankly, weren't all that interesting. I won't write about them as I don't want to spoil anything, even though they only affected me slightly.
"Predators" looks pretty good. I liked the alien landscapes but at times the fight scenes seemed confined to what must have been a rather small set. It felt a bit like Kirk fighting Kruge on the Genesis planet (a monumentally corny scuffle that I still laugh at).
This is the weakest of the "Predator" movies. The original is a total classic while "Predator 2" is a really fun B-Movie romp. I'm not counting any of the "Alien Vs. Predator" movies. They don't exist in the same Humans Vs. Predators domain to me.
Essentially Die Hard in a high school but with a serious modern problem at its core. Its not as tacky as it could have been but should it have been made? School shootings are becoming more regular and while the movie is fairly sensitive to the issue, it’s very being is kind of exploitative.
This is giving Fast and furious a run for their money with the ridiculous shit.
We've seen this film 2012 times and the day after tomorrow it's not impossible that there will be yet another geostorm in a teacup.
But the first two acts of Greenland are more suspense than disaster and the film is all the better for it. Director Ric Roman Waugh does a great job of building tension around how people act in the face of a world threatening event and the sense of urgency rubs off on the viewer.
Sadly, though, the final act slips into the clichés one would expect from a film of this genre, but not badly enough that it erases the good work that precedes it.
A wholesome movie that felt like it was missing something. It's fine but after seeing the documentary last year this wasn't as emotional. Tom Hanks as Mr. Rogers is perfect casting. I wish we got more of him.
If I was 12 and it was 1986 I'd have given it a 9/10 and watched it again already
Tom Hardy, all by himself, almost makes this a good movie.
And, it's hilarious at times (which I believe was intentional, I think this movie is self-aware), way funnier than say Ant-Man and the Wasp.
There was just something about the banter between Eddie and Venom that worked extremely well.
But: the script is awful, the dialogue sucks, the production values are terrible, and anyone that isn't Tom Hardy comes from a much blander film.
So I cannot really recommend it, even though I kinda want to.
This is the lamest comic book movie in a while. The first act is terrible but once the symbiote finally get to Eddie Brock it picks up. The best part by far is Tom Hardy talking to himself. Everyone else is just bland. The effects are fine but the final fight is just a total CGI fest and kinda dull. This isn't worth paying for but it's worth watching to see Tom Hardy act crazy.
Edit: I did like it a little bit more on rewatch just because Tom Hardy is going all out.
